Well that's really on you. If I was in a relationship with a girl and got her pregnant, I would certainly prefer to have that communicated with me, regardless of the ultimate decision. That said, I don't think you have any sort of legal obligation to tell him.

Not from a legal standpoint, but from a personal one. I'm mostly just very curious.

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

That's really difficult. The symptom of the problem is also a symptom of being pregnant, so I suspect that there's always that little bit of doubt about what it could be. I think then you could avoid one sticky situation by getting the test, since pregnancy tests aren't invasive or expensive, there's really nothing to lose.

On the other hand if you just opted to get the procedure because you felt it was highly unlikely that you were pregnant, then it's kind of a toss up in my mind, and a lot of variables come in to play about the relationship itself that could push it either way. That said, my general philosophy is that when in doubt, having all the information is better than not, so I would like to be told, but can easily see the other side of it.

Not really, since there are no hard and fast rules (obviously). It's as fair an answer as you can give, and an honest one, so I can respect that.

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.

Klaudandus wrote:The reason why i deride the as old white rich dudes is because i dont see them put any effort in getting educated,

Then deride them (rightfully) for their ignorance, instead of painting with a broad brush their entire class. Their arguments suck on merits, not because they're old, white, rich dudes. This is hurr durr class warfare, and the core reason politics nowadays suck and the government is useless.

Klaudandus wrote:The reason why i deride the as old white rich dudes is because i dont see them put any effort in getting educated,

Then deride them (rightfully) for their ignorance, instead of painting with a broad brush their entire class. Their arguments suck on merits, not because they're old, white, rich dudes. This is hurr durr class warfare, and the core reason politics nowadays suck and the government is useless.

How exactly does one educate a man with regard to how it feels to be raped, and to have the product of that rape growing inside you, with the capacity to derail, if not destroy, your intended career path, financial situation, education, standing in the community, etc.? And what is it like to further realise that the product of that rape, in addition to being forced upon you and serving as a constant reminder of the event, is also a part of you and could potentially grow up to have your eyes and call you "mommy" and want to bake cookies with you on a cold winter's afternoon?

I can't imagine a more difficult decision for a woman to make, and as a man I am glad I'll never have to make it. But by the same token, I don't for a moment pretend is it up to me or people with my level of understanding, e.g. male, to make that decision for women.

Yes, that's just one scenario, but how the hell could old, rich, white dudes ever be adequately educated to make that decision for all women now and forever? They simply can't. They vote based on the knowledge they have, and usually that goes back to their faith, which has no place in government. This is not a theocracy.

Egyptians would be lucky if their new ruling generals turn out to be in the mold of Chile's Augusto Pinochet, who took power amid chaos but hired free-market reformers and midwifed a transition to democracy

Klaudandus wrote:I dunno, if you get past the old white rich dude, Koatanga has a point.

A fully specious one. It's true that we aren't a theocracy, and certainly some politicians follow that path. However, science isn't exactly pro-choice either.

No I can't imagine what it's like to be pregnant or have that pregnancy caused by a rape. Is that strictly necessary though? Because if it is, then the only people qualified are specifically raped women who were impregnated by the rapist. Because of my race, financial position, or gender I'm not able empathize with women in that situation? I'm not able to consider what if that situation happened to my wife or daughters, and what sort of options I'd like them to have? Aren't there plenty of rich, white, pro-choice men? How does that happen? What about pro-life women...we've talked about the numbers on that already...

And then the other side of the issue, and that's the termination of a life and what that means. At what point is that a person? Does that even matter? I am a person and a former fetus, but because of my race, wealth, and gender I can't look at the science objectively?

Again, it's really easily to argue the points here, and frankly arguing the race, wealth, and gender is not only disgusting, it's not even all that accurate.

I agree the point is not perfect. But many of the lawmakers do drape themselves on the flag of banishing abortion, or at least make it very hard to get one, solely based because Jeezus told them so.

The thing is, it is the lawmakers' duty to get properly and constantly informed, but many refuse to do so.

How can I expect them to consider what is best for women when they think they know best with what little knowledge they have.

These are the kind of people that consider rape not being a valid reason for abortion.

Since I brought up Chile, let me use it as an example of a nation who is very conservative and actually has complete ban of abortion in effecthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the ... story.htmlDoctors say the girl’s life and that of the fetus are at high risk. But in Chile, ending the pregnancy is not an option.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepoliti ... -for-rape/Texas is the latest state where Republican legislators are seeking severe limits on abortions, with no exception in cases of rape and incest. The legislation’s chief sponsor argued that hospitals already have means for rape victims to get “cleaned out.” State Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R): "In the emergency room they have what's called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out. The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development."

Technically it's non existent. Don't get me wrong, it was articulate and emotionally powerful. It just doesn't stand up to much logical scrutiny, unless you believe that the only people capable of making abortion law are women who were impregnated by rape.

As for the rest of your post...Don't look now but you just spent some time attacking ideas and positions without mention of race, wealth, and gender.* The "them" you refer too, are people who have similar thinking and ideas, not people who have the same gender and/or race.

You have a democracy set up (flawed as any democratic system is) that chooses who gets to have influence.

Being a politician myself, I have to say; even being vehemently pro-choice (but at the same time cannot imagine ever "taking" the path in regards to my own relationship), if I get elected on the grounds of my stated (and unstated) opinions my duty to my party, electorate and myself is to represent those opinions - not sit down and defer the difficult stuff to others because something couldn't happen to me, or because I'm not the one being hurt by the law.

Throwing this on anothe rloop, that means that lgbt rights and issues swould not be acknowledged in the US at all - at least, last I checked there was a clear minority of lgbt politicians in the US?

I really like the danish 'foundation law' (constitution) - it has a section dealing with the freedom of memebers of parliament;"Folketingsmedlemmerne er ene bundet ved deres overbevisning og ikke ved nogen forskrift af deres vælgere"(Google)translated to "Parliament members are bound solely by their own consciences and not by any regulation of their constituents"Or translated by my own hand to"Members of Parliament are bound only by their own conviction, and not by any dictates of their constituents"

I think this sums up very nicely what it means to be a politician - being an honest politician means telling the voting public what your convictions are so they can chose the one they agree with the most on what they deem the most important areas.

Please don't try to tell me that I have no business voting for or against legislation (or regulation as the case may be at levels lower than parliament) because of my gender - thats one of the number one reasons given to keep women out of politics for a long time - "what politics was about didn't concern women, as they were tending home".

I'm not a "rich old white dude" (at least, I'm neither rich nor old), but as a politician, my job is to take part in the decisions, not stand aside and let some subset (and thereby a clear minority) decide on important issues.

Technically it's non existent. Don't get me wrong, it was articulate and emotionally powerful. It just doesn't stand up to much logical scrutiny, unless you believe that the only people capable of making abortion law are women who were impregnated by rape.

As for the rest of your post...Don't look now but you just spent some time attacking ideas and positions without mention of race, wealth, and gender.* The "them" you refer too, are people who have similar thinking and ideas, not people who have the same gender and/or race.

*I didn't follow the links, so hopefully they don't make me a liar.

I believe Koatanga's point is that the lawmakers did not even consider rape.

So here you are, the victim of such violence that you end up raped. Let's say you were so overwhelmed by the experience that you didnt take the morning after pill. Now, these lawmakers don't really care about circumstances, all they say is that you are now stuck with it and must carry to term something against your will. Maybe you will love the kid, maybe you abhor the idea of the kid being the product of the one who raped you. But these lawmakers don't care about that.

Many lawmakers have voiced their opinions about rape not being used as a reason for abortion, and are also against the morning after pill.

My point is that men are making decisions about things that they can never be in position to experience. Some women, like Jodie Laubenberg are clearly uneducated about what a rape kit is or does, which implies she is woefully under-educated about an issue that she is deciding upon.

Why must decision that will have massive impacts on the lives of the people forced to make them be decided by people who are unable to understand or are under-educated on the subject?

Yes, the people who are qualified to make the decision are the people who have been raped and have to make that call. That is why government MUST stay out of the picture and leave the issue to the women who are impacted by it.

Somewhere along the line this thing got caught up in this idea that government must make a decision about whether to ban abortions, or to ban abortions in certain cases. Why? Why does the government have to stick its big bureaucratic nose in the middle of it? They could just as easily drop the issue and allow people to make their own choices as to what happens.

If the government must rule as to what would be considered the earliest stage at which a fetus has independent viability and therefore must be brought to term having rights as a person, so as to effectively ban late-term abortions, then that's fine with me because there is another independently viable person to consider apart from the would-be mother (and father).

But the idea that my point is specious, because only women in the position of having to make the choice to abort or not would be qualified to make the decision, is ludicrous, because my point is that they ARE the only ones qualified, and government should stay the hell out of the decision specifically because they are not qualified to make it.

By the way, this is another instance, like gay marriage, in which the majority are unqualified to make a judgement based on any real understanding of the issue, and which the sub-section of people who profess to be religious could easily sway the government into interfering based solely on religious principles.

The United States was founded upon the principle of separation between church and state and has no business legislating religion-based morality.

Koatanga wrote:My point is that men are making decisions about things that they can never be in position to experience. Some women, like Jodie Laubenberg are clearly uneducated about what a rape kit is or does, which implies she is woefully under-educated about an issue that she is deciding upon.

Why must decision that will have massive impacts on the lives of the people forced to make them be decided by people who are unable to understand or are under-educated on the subject?

Yes, the people who are qualified to make the decision are the people who have been raped and have to make that call. That is why government MUST stay out of the picture and leave the issue to the women who are impacted by it.

Somewhere along the line this thing got caught up in this idea that government must make a decision about whether to ban abortions, or to ban abortions in certain cases. Why? Why does the government have to stick its big bureaucratic nose in the middle of it? They could just as easily drop the issue and allow people to make their own choices as to what happens.

If the government must rule as to what would be considered the earliest stage at which a fetus has independent viability and therefore must be brought to term having rights as a person, so as to effectively ban late-term abortions, then that's fine with me because there is another independently viable person to consider apart from the would-be mother (and father).

Well you answer your own question, but in a loaded way with terms like "independent viability". There seems to be this belief that anyone wanting to scrutinize abortion pre viability is some religious nut trying to control a woman's uterus. In reality it's often someone who thinks that what is being killed isn't merely a tumor/collection of cells/etc, that it's a person. Maybe that belief comes from religion (particularly for those that want it banned completely) but for many it does not, and that's why you see dramatically escalating polling data opposed to abortion as the gestation moves along. That's also at the root of the hypocrisy of the whole "control a woman's uterus" argument argued by people who are also against abortions post viability. Both sides are really just trying to make sure it's not a person being killed and the disagreement is about when it is a person. Of course, it's just an easier argument to win if you frame the opposition's argument around something as silly as them wanting to control another person's uterus.

Viable or not a person is a person, and viability is technically an unrelated milestone. Current belieft may be that they happen to occur at the same time, but viability is probably not the best one to hitch your post too, because it's basically now as late as it will ever be. It will only continue to become earlier and earlier as technology advances. At some point it's going to cause some much more complicated legislation, which was at the logic behind the 20 week tenet of the Texas legislation.

Koatanga wrote:But the idea that my point is specious, because only women in the position of having to make the choice to abort or not would be qualified to make the decision, is ludicrous, because my point is that they ARE the only ones qualified, and government should stay the hell out of the decision specifically because they are not qualified to make it.

Actually I said it was specious "unless you believe that the only people capable of making abortion law are women who were impregnated by rape." Now admittedly that's a position that I find to be very myopic, but to each his own. At least this time around you kept the sexist, racist, ideals language out of it. After all, people who have never been impregnated through rape spans a lot of demographics.

Viability is the key point for me. At that point, there exists the possibility of making the child a ward of the state, which does not exist prior to viability. If they want to define that as 20 weeks, that's fine, but as you pointed out, technology will advance to the point that even a newly-fertilized egg could be safely captured and transplanted in an out-patient procedure, making 20 weeks unthinkable, and at which point abortion would be unnecessary.

I did't originate the sexist, racist language - I was referencing prior conversation. However, I do tend to believe that the most influential of politicians almost exclusively fall into the category of "old white dude". There aren't many black females in the "good ol' boys" network. Is that a sweeping generalization? Yes. But is it inaccurate?

That's not inaccurate, but then that's also not close to sufficient justification for that sort of language, so that's a moot point. Most legislators may be old, white, rich, men, but that sort of language requires them all to be old, rich, white men and to all be in favor of this legislation. Most of our politicians in general are white men, but many (perhaps even most) of them are obviously not in agreement with this legislation.

What you have is a group of politicians with similar thinking on a position in which you oppose, but their thinking has nothing to do with their race or gender. It's thinking that is broadly shared and opposed by many people from all sorts of different demographics. The gender and racial references are sad, cheap, and inaccurate.

I hope you'll forgive me if I chuckle at the prospect of young, female, non-white legislators in Texas pushing bills opposed by the "old white dudes" of the state legislature. I'll meet you with "sad" and "cheap", but I'm not budging on inaccurate. Unless you have the support of the gool ol boys' network in Texas (or most other governmental bodies in the US), good luck with your bill.

The "Good ol boys' network" is largely a Southern phenomenon, and while it has no official political affiliation, it's mainly Republican due to the predominance of that party among wealthy white southerners.

I am sorry, but you seem to disqualify arguments solely based on it having used a "derogatory"* term as part of its point, rather than seeing the context of its use.

*I doubt Dewhurst et.al. would object to being called White, Rich and Dude... They would prolly object to being called old though -- even though the terminology is actually factual, just happens that used in this context is an insult.

I mean, both sides have their old white rich dudes, like Franken and Kucinich to mention a couple -- but the connotation, like Koatanga said, is basically an analogue for Good Ol' Boy.

I'm familiar with the term, I lived in Alabama and saw it. Cronyism was really more "old money"/"new money" than anything else to be honest, but that's another topic. However, I'm not arguing that there's isn't a good ol boys network though I think their significance is massively overstated. I'm just pointing out the idiocy of that argument as justification for sexist and racial slurs throughout this thread.

There was no real right answer to that question, which is why the inaccuracy of those slurs is so glaringly obvious. Either there is a club in both parties, in which case, the reference to it makes no sense, or there isn't and there's an entire party who happens to also be mostly old white dudes diametrically opposed to the other, again making the references illogical.

I didn't discount the argument because it had a derogatory term. Sometimes, amazingly enough, those slurs were part of the point and so I refuted that, and sometimes they were extra and I was critical of that too. I just don't think racial and sexist slurs are at all justified.

I'm totally disheartened that this is debatable and has persisted at all.